Summary:
The programme design and development is performed by a competent team considering stakeholder feedback taken regularly following the prescribed guidelines.
The programmes are designed considering the vision, mission, and objectives of the institution and national needs meeting the guidelines given by SLQF and programme outcomes specified in IESL accreditation criteria.
The faculty promotes outcome-based education (OBE) by consciously integrating realistic LOs in each module mapped POs to formulate the intended graduate profile. Further the quality is periodically reviewed through accreditation process and other relevant means.
The programmes are structured essentially to cover the core technical aspects of respective engineering disciplines and also other related skills and knowledge (e.g. Ethics, social and sustainability aspects) to produce a competent graduate.
By considering the performance with 24 sub-criteria of Criterion 3: Programme Design and Development, it can be concluded that the faculty is committed and sufficiently conforms to the Criterion 3. There are some improvement potentials in areas such as expanding the opportunities/facilities to include students with serious disabilities, despite the low number of such cases.
Claim 3.1:
The Programme is developed by ‘Curriculum Revision Committee’ which consists of all competent staff members of the faculty.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.2:
The faculty gets relevant stakeholder participation at key stages of programme planning, design and development and review through FICB and DICB meetings.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.3:
The faculty and department regularly seek feedback of relevant stakeholders to amend and reshape the programme.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.4:
The faculty makes sure that the programmes are aligned with the university vision, mission, national needs and global trends, considering stakeholder review processes.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.5:
The faculty ensures the progmarre design complies with SLQF through its policy and procedures. And also, the programme design is guided by SBS and the feedback of relevant professional bodies.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.6:
The faculty ensures that the programme design and development include specific details; ILO, qualification levels and descriptors, and evaluation criteria enabling to achieve ILO. These are aligned with SLQF through the Quality Assurance Policy Framework of the University.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.7:
The faculty, though its departments, makes sure that the graduate profile and programme outcomes (PO) are met at module levels by means of LO-PO maps.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.8:
The degree programmes/modules are designed with realistic ILOs which are regularly reviewed by external reviewers and stakeholder feedback.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.9:
The faculty adopts OBE and clearly documents the POs are matched with the ILOs of each module. And the teaching, learning and assessment methods are aligned with ILOs of each module.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.10:
The programme consists of both NGPA and GPA courses in the area of professional development, inter-disciplinary & multidisciplinary programme curricula. And also, it consists of compulsory 24weeks of industrial training.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.11:
The programme offers several modules on the said topics or related topics as an integral part to the curriculum.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.12:
The programmes are logically structured with compulsory, elective and optional modules allowing flexibility in students’ choice of modules based on credit requirements. Further, some programmes offer focus areas, and streams.
Evidence of Best Practices
- Student Performance Criteria: Streams and Minors
Claim 3.13:
Curriculum matrix showing courses at different levels layered according to demands in the skills; progression rates data;student feedback.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.14:
The faculty monitors the implementation and evaluation of the programme through key performance measures such as employment rates, PG scholarship receival rates, and other measures through exit surveys to a greater extent.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.15:
The faculty has set the academic standards of the programme with respect to the awards and qualifications aligned with the SLQF.
Evidence of Best Practices
- Program Specification and Graduation Requirements [Compliance with SLQF]: Refer Student Performance Criteria
Claim 3.16:
The faculty has well documented internal policies, procedures and regulations on which academic programmes are designed & developed and assessed.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.17:
The faculty has well established documented mechanisms to design and develop programmes which are communicated to relevant parties as and when required.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.18:
All academic programmes offered by the faculty consist of graduate profile, programme outcomes, course objectives/ILOs, course contents, teaching, learning and assessment methods. Industrial training division have developed industrial training manual incorporating ILOs for each academic programme.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.19:
The Faculty ensures alignment of LOs with POs which consist of the required skills of an engineering graduate as prescribed in IESL accreditation manual when developing the programmes.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.20:
As per the UGC guidelines the University has established an effective internal quality assurance system with internal quality assurance unit (IQAU) at the centre and internal quality assurance cells (IQAC) at the Faculty level with clearly defined scope and TOR. IQUA meets monthly to discuss quality assurance related matters and reports its activities monthly to the Senate.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.21:
University undergoes program reviews according to a pre-prepared schedule approved by the respective Faculties and conducts annual internal reviews to monitor the implementation of quality review recommendations. Additionally, the programmes are periodically accredited to support continuous improvement.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.22:
The faculty continuously used the outcomes of programme monitoring and review by different accreditations institutions to redesign the curriculum of the programme at the minor and major curriculum revisions.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.23:
The University conducts regular studies to monitor graduate employment status and use these statistics when curriculum revisions are performed periodically.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 3.24:
Students with temporary disabilities are accommodated in terms of exam procedures (e.g. Extended reading time, facing exams in the medical centre). The faculty follows the current building regulations which are included with disability access etc.